People who claim humor has died because of PC culture, only know how to be funny at the expense of others.
Punching down isn’t funny either punch up or yourself.
A female comedian I heard recently told a great joke about dating a trans person. Below is the link to her set. The joke is about 9 mins in but the whole set is worth a listen.
How pathetic is it that certain comedians are mad because the audience won’t laugh at their jokes?
Comedians who find it hard to strike home with “offensive” jokes should try the opposite approach for once, those whose jokes center around economic struggles and making fun of terrible people seem to be doing just fine.
If Anthony Jeselnik can still go out there and make the jokes he does, then its not that people are not laughing at your offensive joke, they just not laughing at your shit joke.
Its just a skill issue.
Impossible to be funny now? Maybe git gud
Clearly a skill issue tbh
If you think PC culture is hindering your ability to make jokes, maybe you aren’t that much of a comedy genius
Comedians who got wealthy decades ago: Am I out of touch? No, it’s the culture that’s too PC!
Yeah what’s the deal with not being allowed to drop the N word anymore, humor is dead! /s
Jokes have a part you believe.
“Eat the rich” is a gag about class disparity and cannibalism. But it’s only joking about the cannibalism.
Assholes think ‘you can joke about anything!’ means comedy can never be hateful or hurtful, because they only understand comedy as cruelty you’re not allowed to get mad at. If Dave Chappelle keeps shitting on trans people, onstage, well that’s gotta be fine, because it’s onstage. He’s a comedian. And therefore a nihilist. He doesn’t mean things when he says words! No matter what he also says offstage.
In reality - you can get away with anything, so long as audiences trust you don’t mean it. This is why people get a free pass to demean their own ingroup. We assume folks aren’t racist about themselves. But with enough context - even that can break. Human beings are fantastic at discerning meaning. So even hilariously clever phrasing can’t stop deeply bigoted stereotypes from piercing the social expectations that make stand-up work, and leave people questioning the bit.
Tbh “eat the rich” has some pretty uncomfortable historical connotations when it comes to Maoist China. I know survivors of the cultural revolution and they definitely don’t find that shit funny.
It is a simplification of a longer concept “When people having nothing more to eat they will eat the rich” which is kinda seperate from the whole Maoist China thing. Also the cultural revolution was a complete fuckup seperate from the original meaning, one is about desperation of the common people the other is another example why vanguardists need to be stabbed before they cause a famine.
Conan O’Brien had an interview I think with Taylor Tomlinson where they talked about this topic.
Their conclusion was that comics that complain about it being harder to do comedy are just lazy.
It’s always been hard. Even if it’s true that there are less topics that you can touch, it means that you have to dig deeper in the well you can. It’s your job as a comic to do that hard work, not the audience’s job to laugh at your shit joke.
Conan has been doing comedy his whole life and talks about jokes that do great one night and jokes that bomb the next. Comics need to learn to read the room and adjust their jokes accordingly.
I agree but I do sympathize with one part of it. Things that were widely considered funny a few years ago are not today. I do think it’s unfair to hold people in the past to the standards of today, but people love digging up old footage and bludgeoning people with it.
If a comic makes a joke and it bombs, maybe it’s not funny. Maybe they used it with the wrong audience. Reading the culture and the room and choosing wisely is part of the job, like you say. But if it bombs 5 years later on Twitter, maybe it should have just been left in the past with the context it belonged in and not dug up and resurrected for clicks.
Plenty of people had the courage to call out injustice before it was popular. Mark Twain is a famous counterexample to “everyone was racist in the 1800s.” Being an ignorant sheep is a valid defense for bigotry, but it’s the lowest possible form of defense.
I’m not saying, “Hey, it’s fine” I’m saying that people and cultures change, and should be allowed to change. Never before have people been so unable to escape their past. Yeah, occasionally you get a Bernie Sanders who seems to nail it right off. But most people have some skeletons or some shit they’d be embarrassed about if it were dug up and went viral.
When you dig up the past and hit people with it, you discourage progress. People are more likely to dig in their heels, knowing that the opinions they have today they’ll have to answer for tomorrow.
I would argue that the axiom “consider the feelings of others” is pretty universal and timeless. Philosopher Simone de Beauvoir coined the imperative “do that which maximizes freedom for others” in 1947. Kant debuted his categorical imperative in 1785. These are not new ideas. You are acting like this is some arbitrary ethic which changes at random, when in reality the ideas of “don’t be a dick” and “make society inclusive” is at minimum, centuries old.
At minimum, everyone always has the out of “I was wrong and now I understand.” It is here that people like Seinfeld and Rowling really fuck it up.
people really love to forget that the american union army literally fought a war against slavery, The Battle Hymn of the Repbublic was written by an abolishionist and was inspired by John Brown’s Body, a song about a man who was so furiously anti-slavery that he refused an insanity plea because that would lessen his anti-slavery message.
Like man, how many people nowadays are going to war specifically on the grounds of ending injustices like slavery? People of the past were unquestioningly capable of considering the rights of others and recognizing that exploitation do indeed be bad.
